REPUBLIC vs. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE; EX PARTE CANTARA [1981]DLHC2183

Date	1981-12-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1981]DLHC2183

TWUMASI J.

MISS SUTHERLAND FOR THE APPLICANT.

OWOO PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1981]DLHC2183
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE; EX PARTE CANTARA <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 528<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
21 DECEMBER 1981<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

MISS SUTHERLAND FOR THE APPLICANT. <o:p></o:p>

OWOO, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>Until his
dismissal, the applicant was a general police constable with service No. 22499
CC/1 stationed at Tarkwa in the Western Region. Some time in October 1981, two
charges of misconduct contrary to section 17 (k) of the Police Service Act, 1970
(Act 350), were preferred against him.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
procedural rules for the trial of offences committed by police officers are
contained in the Police Force (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations, 1974
(L.I. 993). Under regulation 3 (1), the hierarchy of the disciplinary authority
is: (a) a superior officer who shall have power to impose a penalty not more
severe than stoppage of increment for one year; (b) a regional board which has
power to impose all penalties on all ranks up to sergeant; and all minor penalties;
and (c) the central board at the Police Headquarters, Accra, which has power to
impose all penalties. Before it takes legal effect, a penalty imposed by a
superior officer requires the approval of the regional board. Similarly, any
penalty imposed by a regional board requires the approval of the central board:
see regulation 3 (3), (4) and (5).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Whenever
an offence is committed and after investigations the regional board is of the
opinion that it should be dealt with by formal disciplinary proceedings, the
board has a mandatory duty under regulation 16 (c) to formulate charges against
the officer accused of the offence and nominate an officer to hear the case.
Officer here should mean a superior officer as referred to in regulation 3 (1).
Under regulation 2 (2), the regional board consists of the superior police
officer in charge of the region and two other superior police officers
appointed by the Inspector-General of Police; and regulation 2 (3) lays down
that the quorum of a regional board shall be two.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
apparent from the record of proceedings that when the regional board received a
report against the applicant, it was of the opinion that the case should be
dealt with by formal proceedings and accordingly, the board, constituted by two
members, Messrs. J. O. Tham and E. K. Abotsi, formulated charges against the
applicant and nominated Mr. S. K. K. Senti, Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kwesimintsim, to hear the case (see letter dated 25 October 1979,
W.R.H./175/V.42/108). The charges were that the defendant had used a cane to
whip two persons, one a suspect and the other a police officer, at the charge
office.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
Mr. Senti could conduct the inquiry, Mr. E. K. Abotsi, a member of the Western
Regional Board, by a letter dated 6 February 1980, ref.
T.K.W./DIVHQ.52/VOL.8/9, unilaterally instructed Mr. S. O. Dokyi, Deputy
Superintendent of Police; to hold the inquiry at Tarkwa without further delay.
Mr. S. O. Dokyi heard the case and found the defendant guilty of one of the
counts and acquitted him of the other. He did not impose a penalty within his
powers but recommended to the regional board that the defendant should be
dismissed from the Police Force. The regional board accepted the recommendation
and in turn recommended the defendant’s dismissal to the central board which
ordered the dismissal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
entire disciplinary proceedings have been virulently attacked by Miss
Sutherland, counsel for the applicant. She pinpoints what she terms an
irregularity in the appointment of Mr. Dokyi and submits that the irregularity
makes the proceedings null and void. Mr. Owoo, Principal State Attorney, does
not see anything wrong with the appointment of Mr. Dokyi to conduct the
inquiry. His argument is that after appointing Mr. Senti, the regional board
had power to revoke that appointment in favour of another officer. He relied on
section 11 of the Interpretation Act, 1960 (C.A. 4), which provides:<o:p></o:p>